Share This Story!

To put it bluntly, many pot questions lack answers

As New Jersey ponders the possible legalization of recreational marijuana, some local officials are already considering steps to limit the impact in their communities, including municipal bans on sales.

As New Jersey ponders the possible legalization of recreational marijuana, some local officials are already considering steps to limit the impact in their communities, including municipal bans on sales. Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears inclined to take a tougher stand against state laws that run counter to federal prohibitions on cannabis. We reached out to the New Jersey League of Municipalities for some perspective on the pot-related issues with which towns must grapple, and how all of these dueling interests may clash. Michael F. Cerra, assistant executive director and director of government affairs for the New Jersey League of Municipalities, tackled some questions for us:

Does the League of Municipalities have a specific position on legalizing marijuana in New Jersey?

Not at the moment. The league has a diverse membership and has convened a task force to review the issue, the proposed legislation, and to develop a series of recommendations, which may or may not include a position on legalization.

Individual towns would have the ability to ban sales within their own borders even if it’s legalized, is that correct? Do you have a sense of how widespread such a movement could be?

Every proposal discussed to date has included an opt-out provision for municipalities, meaning that they would be authorized to bar businesses which would manufacture, distribute or sell marijuana. A number of municipalities have already taken such action, or are in the process of doing so. Out of fairness, it is probably premature to describe it as widespread at this point, but it may become more significant.

Is that as far as municipalities can go in counteracting the state law? Could they also target possession, for instance? Or how about if part of the new laws allowed for limited home growing?

This all speculative, since no law has been enacted and no bill has been scheduled for a hearing. It is likely that, if recreational marijuana use is legalized, then mere possession would not be an offense. However, it would seem likely that home growing would be subject to regulation. And, it could impose an added enforcement responsibility on local police.

Would municipal bans on sales be anything more than gestures on principle? Seems like interested consumers wouldn’t have much trouble getting their pot elsewhere, after all.

A local ban is more than a meaningless gesture. Local residents and business owners might be concerned about the possible impact of legalization on public safety and the quality of life. A municipal ban could provide reassurance to concerned citizens. It could mitigate worries about local law enforcement issues that could arise at marijuana production facilities, warehouses and retail outlets. It could also address uncertainties related to the potential for legalized-marijuana-related street crimes, and disorderly persons offenses.

CLOSE

As New Jersey takes steps toward legalizing recreational marijuana, the cannabis industry is trying to unravel an image problem that is decades in the making.
Michael L. Diamond

Would there be value in clusters of adjacent towns joining together in adopting a ban on sales? Or even trying to encourage county-wide involvement in some fashion? To make a difference, it seems like there couldn’t be easy access right over the border somewhere.

Maybe. The studies we’ve seen are inconclusive. But, if legalization does impact traffic safety, then enforcement of motor vehicle laws and accident response would still be problematic. Interstates, U.S. highways and state roads crisscross virtually every municipality in New Jersey. Towns can block the production, distribution and the sale of the substance. But there is no way for an inter-local or a countywide ban to deter the use, and potential abuse, of cannabis.

The state could deny towns that don’t participate in selling pot any of the revenue that comes from it. Is that a legitimate threat, and if so, would it be enough to discourage the local bans?

It would be absurd to deny any towns the resources that they will need to address legitimate law enforcement demands that could arise, if recreational marijuana is allowed anywhere in the state. Especially as the state looks to cash in on legalization, with taxes and fees on the industry.

The Trump administration has made noises about more meaningful enforcement of the federal marijuana restrictions that have been largely ignored in allowing states to go their own way on the issue. Is that something the league would or would not want to see, and how might that affect local concerns?

That would be a real problem for local law enforcement in New Jersey, which functions under the guidance of the state Attorney General. We would have serious concerns with that. And there’s no telling if the U.S. Department of Justice wouldn’t also apply the same standards to medical marijuana.

To what degree has the league researched the impact of legalization in other states, and what are the primary lessons to be pulled from those experiences thus far?

We have reached out to other states where recreational marijuana is allowed. The primary lessons we have learned, so far, are: 1) that municipal governments will have to handle any problems that arise; and 2) that they will not be given sufficient resources to deal with those issues. New Jersey policy makers need to recognize and address those lessons, as debates on legalization move forward.

Michael F. Cerra is assistant executive director and director of government affairs for the New Jersey League of Municipalities.